9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1068 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 217/86 dated 1.3.1986 and N/N. 281/86 dated 24.4.1986 - manufacture of measuring and checking instruments, appliances and machinery, checking templates, gauges falling under Chapter Heading 9031 or unloading machinery, lifting tackles, trolleys carriers, conveyors falling under sub-heading 8428.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - on the identical issue, in the appellants own case TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., PUNE 2006 (9) TMI 185 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Hon ble Supreme Court allowed the exemption Notification No. 217/86 and 81/86 - it was held in the case on similar issue, that the appellant is entitled for the exemption N/N. 217/86 and 281/86 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Claim of exemption under Notification No. 217/86 and 281/86 for specific products under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Analysis: The case involved the appellants claiming exemption under Notification No. 217/86 and 281/86 for their manufactured products falling under specific chapters and sub-headings. The appellant's counsel referenced a previous Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC), to argue that the issue of eligibility for the said notifications had already been settled in their favor. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court in the case of TISCO Ltd. to support their position. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously allowed the exemption under Notification No. 217/86 and 281/86 in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal referred to the specific order of the Supreme Court in the appellant's favor. The Tribunal also highlighted that the judgment relied upon by the Revenue had already been considered by the Supreme Court and was distinguished in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court's judgment in the appellant's case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions and found the previous Tribunal's order to be cryptic and non-speaking. It was noted that the Tribunal did not clearly establish whether the production was carried out in the workshop within the factory or if the goods were used for repair or maintenance of machinery as required by the notifications. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the case back for a fresh decision with proper reasoning and an opportunity for both parties to present their case. In conclusion, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the appellant's case and the distinction made regarding the judgment relied upon by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned decision-making process in such matters. Judges: - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) - Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
|
